Being the amazing, true-to-life adventures and (very likely) misadventures of a writer who seeks to take his education, activism and seemingly boundless energy to North Minneapolis, (NoMi) to help with a process of turning a rapidly revitalizing neighborhood into something approaching Urban Utopia. I am here to be near my child. From 02/08 to 06/15 this blog pushed free speech to the envelope, so others could take heart and speak unafraid. Email me at hoffjohnw@gmail.com

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

VIDEO: Water, Sewer Ripped Out At Uncle Bill's Store...

It isn't very exciting as far as videos go, but it gets some folks in the neighborhood pretty riled up; some with positive feelings, some with negative feelings. It's the first punch in a much-anticipated boxing match: the old Uncle Bill's store versus heavy equipment. Backhoe of Doom versus the alleged former residence of several hoes in a no-holds-barred ruuuuuuuuuuuumble in the rubbbbbbbbbbbble!

This video just shows the guys fooling around with their equipment. They had already dug one large hole in the street, and here they were apparently switching between the scoop versus jackhammer function. They were pretty casual about the whole affair. I kept waiting for Lennie Chism to show up, yelling like he did at the Fifth Ward DFL convention, but he was nowhere to be seen.

This battle is kind of a mismatch, don't you think? The outcome isn't REALLY in question, the only question is HOW UGLY WILL IT GET?

Don Allen's blog has written about Lennie Chism's desire to stop the demolition, click here. Now Lennie appears to be saying stuff like, well, if the building can't be used for a store, at least it could be lofts or something. It seems Lennie prefers to live in his dream world and ignore the people who are experts in the cost of this kind of rehab. Lennie seemed to feel his ownership would stop the demolition. Well, that and some "positive thinking" fast talk and a few comparisons between himself and the great men of history.

However, demolition doesn't appear to have paused by so much as a single minute.

Chipper the Entrepreneurial Squirrel is claiming some of his nut-caches were destroyed by the digging yesterday, and wants to know if he can be named as a co-plaintiff? You can use the comment threads of this blog to attempt to contact Chipper!

To Anon@903am - I can tell that's you, Don Allen, who wrote that comment about filing a lawsuit. It's your obsession with Lisa G. that gave it away.

See the thing is, the building was condemned before Lennie bought it, I believe it had the demo order before he bought it. He can reverse the demo order but there are of course huge hoops for him to jump through in order to do that. Such as showing a certain amount of financial backing, placing down the required bonds for repairs, obtaining 75% of residents in the area's signatures etc etc.

The city has no obligation to halt it's process while the new owner does all this, instead the new owner needs to work within the city's timeframe. If Lennie didn't have the "political and economical jack" to pull it off right away within the city's timeframe for what was planned before he even purchased it, well then, that was his "BAD".

Frankly I predicted a lawsuit a long time ago, and Lennie's decision to file to challenge Don Samuels was just part of Lennie's contrived plot to cause a big stink.

What a great community member, huh? Way to make progress in the northside Lennie, pull us down to your level, like crabs in a barrel.

To Don Allen: first time on the blog in 3 days and you just happen to read/comment within 10 mins of me calling you out?

You were posting all kinds of things about Lisa G and developers and lawsuits the other day, and now just coincidentally today someone is talking about lawsuits, developers, Don Samuels and comparing him to Lisa G.

Why does JNS need to disclose the amount of money generated from this blog? Whether it's paypal, google ads, private donations, etc - what business is it of anyone elses and why should Johnny Northside be questioned?

I happen to know it's very little, probably not much more than what the internet connection costs each month.

What if reader's were asked to disclose the amount of income they generate??

Anon 9:03 Says:"The city's refusal to allow Lennie Chism to make the repairs of the building equates to "taking without just compensation"."

The NOMI Squirrel Replies:While I may not be an attorney, I CAN read. "taking without just compensation" has nothing to do with my buddies Lennie and chipper the entrepreneurial squirrel's current predicament. In fact, Chipper tried to warn Lennie that there were a lot of obstacles that he needed to address if he was going to get the demo order on the building reversed. He chose to not listen to Chipper and went ahead with his half-baked plan anyway.

As such, the City (as I knew they would), because they have no good reason to reverse an order that was in effect prior to Lennie "purchasing" the property, is going to go ahead with what was mandated by the community and its residents.

Now Lennie will get fair market value for the eyesore and be billed for the demo on the property. Unfortunately (for Lennie), he doesn't get to set "fair-market value". Which actually is good news for NOMI taxpayers.

Because you see ANON, if what you were saying was true, it would spawn a whole new corrupt industry. Unscrupulous speculators would buy-up properties scheduled for demolition and hold the City hostage. Thank the squirrel gods that the world doesn't work that way. At least not in NOMI.

Now all the slumlords have a strategy to attack the Don "Mobster" Samuels from condemnation.

Another vacant lot is what JNS is cheering for.

How many of those do we already have along broadway?

This guy will have the city burning up lawyer time defending "taking without just compensation" - wtf - $3,000 was the purchase price - tax value near $300K, wtf, oh plus damages. Brilliant return on the money if he can pull it off. Cheering for Mr. Chism's success.

I want him as my client too.

JNS keep writing on the developing story.

I am an attorney, I have never had a client ask for "taking without just consideration."

Anon 12:05 says:The more I read about Lennie Chism, the more impressed I am.

Now all the slumlords have a strategy to attack the Don "Mobster" Samuels from condemnation.

This guy will have the city burning up lawyer time defending "taking without just compensation" - wtf - $3,000 was the purchase price - tax value near $300K, wtf, oh plus damages. Brilliant return on the money if he can pull it off. Cheering for Mr. Chism's success.

I am an attorney, I have never had a client ask for "taking without just consideration."

The NOMI Squirrel replies:Hard to believe an ethical attorney would use the term "Don mobster Samuels". But, then again, not all attorneys are ethical I guess.

It's great that we're finally getting things out in the open, as the true "business plan" for the "usual suspects" has always been about self enrichment. Not bettering NOMI.

My guess is that as an attorney, you never had anyone ask you about a SLAP lawsuit either. Yet you went ahead and got involved with one. MY advice? Read your law books before you venture into unknown areas of "expertise" and you'll not have your lunch handed to you so often.

Lennie is grasping at straws now to avoid paying the bill for the demolition that he incurred by "purchasing" the property for $3,000. The main result of this "purchase," is to let the out-of-state holding company off the hook for the cost of the demolition, and thus sticking his nose into the problem for the express purpose of costing the city of Minneapolis $50,000 to $100,000--since if he had that kind of money, he probably wouldn't have let his Glenwood property go into foreclosure.

The fact that Lennie doesn't have the funds necessary to follow the legal process for appealing the demolition just indicates that he doesn't have the wherewithal to develop the property. That's the point of the process, which so far seems to be working just as it should.

The earlier attorney had the term incorrect, but is on point. If Lennie Chism offered to correct the problems, the city was obligated to provide the opportunity. Failure to do so, has opened the door to a lawsuit. The city wanted the property to come down, they needed to follow the law. Since it was a poor community, the city used illegal tactics, but it appears Lennie Chism is in line for a massive payday. I look forward to following the case once filed.

As with Lisa Goodman, the city is going to lose a bundle for corruption in city council.

They could have never attempted this strategy in any other part of the city except North Minneapolis. It appears, it may ultimately backfire. But hell, I don't live in Minneapolis. Just practice.

Wild to see in a community that has 50% unemployment you wouldn't want to see businesses established. There is no where for kid to work, men in our community, or women. The city worker is a white guy who probably doesn't even live on the Northside.

Hey JNS, do you have a job? How do you make a living? One blog entry was you're an alcoholic. I read you were recalled out off North Dakota city council for your incest comments.

To anonymous at 4:43, did you SERIOUSLY just tell me the "white guy" is somebody who "presumably" doesn't live in North Minneapolis?

It's no wonder you need to keep your comments anonymous. That comment is so stupid it's nothing you'd want to stand behind in public.

Secondly, no I was not "kicked off" anything in North Dakota for a remark about incest, specifically how having on Congressman for the WHOLE STATE was really odd, kind of like when your grandparents are also your parents, or words to that effect.

Here's a link to the article. Judge for yourself.

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/02/22/have-you-hugged-nodak-today

I had left North Dakota long before I pissed off some people with that particular column written once I residing in Minnesota. I thank god every day I live in North Minneapolis instead of the North Dakota "rural ghetto."

By the way...I reserve the right to stop publishing comments that I reasonably suspect improperly come from opposing counsel or opposing parties in a lawsuit. Immediately. It's my blog and I can do as I please, so...

It was nice chatting with you.

P.S. Kind of hung up on that whole "alcoholic" thing, aren't you? Well, we can certainly chat on this thread all you like about our favorite kinds of booze! Our own little "beer summit," if you will, though I don't drink beer. I prefer...hard liquor. And a bar where there's, like, a female lounge singer with a guitar signing songs about THE PLANET.

And, to be perfectly clear, I consider North Dakota's one Congressman to be a really great man, and I never meant that commentary as any criticism of HIM, merely a discussion of North Dakota being, well, chronically underdeveloped.

But I've left those issues to the side and prefer to concentrate on North Minneapolis issues.

anon 3:53 said:"Correct term is 'taking without just compensation' The earlier attorney had the term incorrect, but is on point. If Lennie Chism offered to correct the problems, the city was obligated to provide the opportunity. Failure to do so, has opened the door to a lawsuit. The city wanted the property to come down, they needed to follow the law. Since it was a poor community, the city used illegal tactics, but it appears Lennie Chism is in line for a massive payday. I look forward to following the case once filed."

dmp replies:

You and I both know it's not quite as simple as that and if WE both don't know that, then you're not much of an attorney. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it's based in fact, or that they'll collect.

Stating IF lennie chism offered to correct the problems is the first big stretch to a property that has lost its zoning and was already scheduled for demolition when it was "purchased" (which no one has verified as of yet).

Operating "in good faith and using reasonable care and judgement" works in both directions. So far as I can see, the City is the only party that has done so thus far.

Jordan Neighbor has it right. If the condemnation and the demo order were out before Mr. Chism purchased the property, it is his lookout to get a court order to prevent the demo, which he still could try to do. (The property was so encumbered when he bought it). I think he could find one friendly judge to issue at least a temporary stay. Going the other route is more complicated. He'd have to prove a taking. Demoing an already condemned building is not a taking. It isn't keeping him from using the property. It isn't taking the property and giving it to someone else or for the city to take it for a public use. If he had agreed to do the demo work himself he wouldn't be out all the money for the work.

To the inexperienced attorney who wrote: I am an attorney, I have never had a client ask for "taking without just consideration."

That is exactly the reason why you should NOT take that case.

But I do agee that Lennie has a valid lawsuit -- he should sue the guy that sold him the building that the city was planning to demolish!! What that guy did was sold Lennie debt. Hey lawyer, you ever take a property lemon law case before? How about tax law? Bankruptcy? Well, those are areas that going to help Lennie at this point. That 3rd Amend claim is just a lazy distractions because it is easy to serve the City.

What I can't figure out is why nobody gave Lennie the advice that he really needed...to NOT purchase a building that the city was going to knock down?

Something tells me that the squirrel was right -- but I not sure that squirrel has a claim against the City either.